| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
St. Helena
20. Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester): When he plans to introduce legislation to restore full British citizenship to the people of St. Helena. [79966]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I confirmed in the White Paper last month that we shall be extending British citizenship to all citizens of the overseas territories, including St. Helena. The Government of St. Helena have since expressed their welcome for this. The House will be aware that it is the convention not to announce in advance of the Queen's Speech when parliamentary legislation will be introduced, but we shall seek to do so as soon as practicable.
Mr. Russell: I certainly welcome the Government's best intentions to put right the 18 years of wrongdoing by the previous Government. I think that the 5,500 islanders are looking for the speedy passage of legislation. I would welcome any assistance that the Foreign Secretary can give to put right the 18 years of neglect and rejection of the previous Government.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the number of times that he has raised this issue, which I
know is a matter of interest to his constituents who, as I understand it, share the same patron saint, St. Helena. I am glad for the hon. Gentleman's support and I look forward to it when we introduce legislation. It will be a complex and detailed matter, as any nationality legislation must be. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, having secured the agreement, we intend to act on it as soon as we can to put right the injustice that we inherited from the previous Administration.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): May I add my warm thanks and my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on making such a decision, not only for the people of St. Helena but for many other people in other overseas territories who wish to take advantage of what is proposed? Does my right hon. Friend have any idea how many citizens in the other overseas territories are saying that they intend to take up this right?
Mr. Cook: We would expect that most of the citizens of the overseas territories would take up the right to British citizenship. That does not mean, of course, that they will wish to take up the right to settle in Britain. We should remember that our overseas territories are now so vigorous and successful in terms of prosperity that most of them enjoy a standard of living that is higher than that of the United Kingdom.
It is not immediately apparent why the residents of Caribbean islands with a higher standard of living than that of people in Britain should necessarily choose to leave their home to come to settle in Britain. However, they will find what we propose an important step in demonstrating that we are as proud of them as they are of their British connections. They will welcome the opportunity to travel freely throughout Europe without going through the non-EU channel when they visit other countries of the European Union.
Visa Applications
21. Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): On what basis he determines the charges for processing visa applications in overseas consulates and embassies. [79967]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): In accordance with Government policy, the visa fee is set so as to allow the full costs of providing the global visa issuing operation to be recovered.
Dr. Harris: In working out what the charges are, do the Government pay any regard to the standard of living in countries where charges are operated or to the quality of decision making, at least on initial application? Some of my constituents have spoken to me about people who have tried to visit them from Russia and South Africa, telling me that the very high charges prevent would-be visitors from applying to visit relatives or fiances in this country.
Mr. Lloyd: We have a duty to operate a visa regime in a way that is helpful to those wishing to visit this country, but it is legitimate in terms of taxpayers, who gain no direct benefit from the visa regime, that it should recover full costs. Within that context, I understand the
point that the hon. Gentleman makes about charges for unsuccessful visas. However, the cost of processing a visa, whether successful or unsuccessful, is pretty much the same. It would be rather unfair on successful applicants to say that they may have to bear the costs that are borne by those who apply unsuccessfully.
A differential charge for different parts of the world would be quite contentious. It would be a highly subjective matter which areas deserved low-cost visas and which areas should have super-cost visa charges. That would be a little difficult to implement.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
I know that my hon. Friend recognises the problems in Pakistan and Bangladesh of getting to Dhaka, Karachi or Islamabad, and the cost involved. What is his opinion of the screening process, which deters many people from submitting a visa application, although they would probably have succeeded if they had gone ahead, as they had a genuine case?
Mr. Lloyd:
I know that my hon. Friend has dealt with many such cases over a long period, as I have. He will know that the best advice that he can give to his constituents is to make sure that the application goes in, and that it is submitted on the basis of the fullest possible information. People cannot be advised by Members of Parliament, and certainly not by Ministers, not to submit applications for fear that they might be refused.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
Does the Minister find that people who are resident in the United Kingdom are making applications to overseas posts for visas? I have a constituent who has been waiting seven months for his wife's visa to be renewed through the Passport Agency in the UK. The collapse of the IT system there is causing many problems. Will the Minister have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Home Office to make sure that the renewal of visas for people such as married women who came from Russia is dealt with properly?
Mr. Lloyd:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no doubt that the Passport Agency is in a state of chaos because of decisions made by the previous Government on these matters. I undertake to draw the attention of my hon. Friends at the Home Office to the points that the hon. Gentleman makes to see whether there is an easy resolution. However, I remind him that, as a supporter of the previous Government, he might consider his own responsibility and perhaps say to his constituents that he is sorry.
23. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
How many Ministers of the Government of Chile have visited his Department since 2 May 1997. [79969]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook):
We are aware of eight visits by Chilean Ministers during this period. I have met the Foreign Minister, Jose Miguel Insulza, and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mariano Fernandez. I meet Jose Miguel Insulza again tomorrow for breakfast.
Mr. Wilkinson:
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that only two of Her Majesty's Ministers have visited Chile
Mr. Cook:
As I said, I have already met both Foreign Ministers of Chile, and I meet the senior one again tomorrow. We have had regular contact and dialogue with them, and we have encouraged them also to understand the nature of modern Britain, where the rule of law applies and the Government intend to uphold the due judicial process. This is the umpteenth time at Question Time that the hon. Gentleman has invited us to depart from the due legal process, which we have no intention of doing.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
When my right hon. Friend has met Chilean Ministers, have they said that they are grateful to this country for the way in which, in 1974, when a Labour Government were elected, we gave asylum to so many Chileans who were fleeing from the terror following the coup of 1973? Is that not a great tribute to our country? Is it not a fact that those who found asylum in Britain at the time well understand what is happening and want the rule of law to continue?
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was taken in a quasi-judicial role and with the strict application of the legal rules. It was not taken in response to public opinion. However, if we are being invited to have regard to public opinion in Chile, it is important for the House to recognise that there is more than one opinion in Chile. The last opinion poll in Chile found that the public were split down the middle on whether it was right for Senator Pinochet to be detained in the United Kingdom for extradition and trial in Europe.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham):
When the Foreign Secretary has breakfast with the Chilean Minister tomorrow morning, will he make it clear that it would have been lawful for the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion so that Senator Pinochet could be returned to Chile? Will he also make it clear that he will raise a protest over the stopping of LanChile flights to the Falkland Islands at the end of last month as a direct result of the Government's treatment of visitors to this country from Chile? The matter is of great concern to the Falkland islanders, who believe that the Government have sacrificed them on the altar of their own incompetence.
Mr. Cook:
LanChile's decision was a decision made by LanChile as a company, not by the Chilean Government--and the Chilean Government have no right to order it to resume a service, any more than I have the right to order any airline to resume a service.
As for the hon. Lady's wider point, the Home Secretary made a decision involving strict application of the legal rules, having regard to the due process, and rightly decided that this was a matter for the courts, not politicians, to decide. There was a time when the
Conservative party prided itself on the rule of law; that pride deserts it when the rule of law is applied to one of its own political cronies.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The relationship between the House of Commons and the courts is always very delicate. May I refer to questions 8, 9 and 13, which dealt with Lockerbie? We shall have to study what was actually said in Hansard, but it seemed to some of us who have spoken to the lawyers acting for Pan Am's executors, and to
Madam Speaker:
I was conscious of the exchanges that took place today, and I very much doubt that they offended against the sub judice rule--if, indeed, such a rule applies. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, however: I want to give some careful thought to the matter, and I hope that he will allow me to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |